They had taken the oaths to, and read the prayers for the pre sent government; they observed the orders for public fasts and thanksgivings; and yet they shewed in many places, their aversion to our establishment too visibly. This made many conclude that the clergy were a sort of men, that would swear and pray, even against their consciences rather than loose their benefices; and by consequence, that they were governed by interest, not by principle. Upon the whole matter, the nation was falling into a general corruption, both as to morals and principles; and that was so much spread among all sorts of people, that it gave us great apprehensions of heavy judgments from heaven."

Queen Mary, in a letter to king William, July 1690, has these remarkable words, "I must put you in mind of one thing, believing it now the season (the king was then in Ireland), which is, that you would take care of the church in Ireland. Every body agrees, that it is the worst in Christendom.”+

CHAP. XVI.

The perplexity of the established clergy of Ireland after the coronation of king William.

THE strange versatility, and trimming behaviour of the Irish established clergy on this occasion, is thus freely described by Mr. Lesley. "Before the association in the north, they prayed for king James; in the beginning of March following, they proclaimed the prince of Orange king, and prayed for him. On the 14th of that month, king James's army broke their forces at Dromore, in the north of Ireland; then they prayed again for king James, that God might strengthen him to vanquish and overcome all his enemies; in August following, Schomberg came over with an English army; then, as far as his quarters reached, they returned to pray the same prayer for king William, the rest of the protestants still praying for victory to king James. And yet they say, that, all that while, they all meant the same thing; four times in one year, praying back4 Dalrymp. Mem. vol. iii. p. 154. Lesley's Answer to King, p. 108.

ward and forward, point blank contradictory to one another. The bishop of Meath in his speech at the head and in name of the protestant clergy of Dublin, took pains to clear himself and them to king William, from having been so much as trimmers to king James, while he was among them; that is, they were his inveterate enemies. Yet his lordship was one of the lords spiritual mentioned in the address of the parliament of Ireland to that king, on the 10th of May, 1689; in which they abhor the unnatural usurpation of the prince of Orange, and the treason of those who joined with him in England an Ireland; and profess to king James with their tongues and hearts, that they will ever assert his rights to his crown, with their lives and fortunes, against the said usurper and his adherents, and all other rebels and traitors whatsoever."3

*

That William's motives for invading England, were very different from what they are commonly thought to have been, viz. a glorious heroic zeal to deliver these kingdoms from popery and slavery, will appear from the following passage,

In the treaty of peace at Ryswick, " as William trusted not his three plenipotentiaries at the Hague with his agreement with France, mankind justly concluded, that a secret of the last importance had been for some time depending between the two kings (Lewis XIV. and him), time has at length unravelled the mystery. Lewis unwilling to desert James, proposed that the prince of Wales should succeed to the crown of England, after the death of William: the king with little hesitation agreed to the request. He even solemnly engaged to procure the repeal of the act of settlement, and to declare by another, the prince of Wales his successor to the throne.— The fifty thousand pounds a year settled as a jointure on king James's queen, was agreed to be paid, though the money was afterwards retained upon various pretences. Those (adds my author) who ascribe all the ac tions of William to public spirit, will find some difficulty in reconciling this transaction to their elevated opinion of his character. In one con cession to France, he yielded all his professions to England; and by an act of indiscretion, or through indifference, deserted the principles to which he owed the throne. The supposed spuriousness of the prince of Wales's birth, had been only held forth to amuse the vulgar, and even these would be convinced by the public acknowledgment intended to be made by the very person whose interest was most concerned in the support of that idle talc.”—Macphers. Hist. of Gr. Brit. vol. ii. p. 122-3-4.

CHAP. XVII.

The established clergy of Ireland laboured under a particular difficulty on this occasion.

AFTER king James's abdication, the parliament of England abolished the declaration, viz.'" that it was not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take up arms against the king. But this, by some neglect, was still left upon the Irish protestant clergy, under the penalty of forfeiting their livings, and as many of them as came into livings, after the revolution (among whom Dr. King was one), read the said declaration publicly in time of divine service, and were to continue so to do until some parliament took it away. Notwithstanding which, they preached against it, disputed against it, and instructed their congregations against it. And yet, to save their livings, they continued still to subscribe this hated declaration before their ordinaries; and took certificates under their hands and seals, that they had subscribed it; and openly and publicly read the same, on the Lord's day, in their parish-churches, in the presence of the congregation there assembled. They read it in the desk, and preached against it in the pulpit; and when they came out of the church, railed at the parliament that imposed it, and wondered and cursed their hard fate, that this declaration was not taken out of their way in Ireland as it was in England, and wished it was done. In the mean time they would lose nothing by it, they could swallow."

Nor was their embarrassment much less, upon taking the new oaths that were afterwards framed. "There never was, proceeds Mr. Lesley, so sudden, so shameful a turn of men professing religion; and their manner of doing it so impolitic as to make it evident, that they took the oaths, at least, with a doubting and scrupulous conscience. For they did not take

1 Lesley's Answ. to King, p. 112.

2 Ib. p. 123.

The Irish Roman catholics, "made no scruple to take the oath of allegiance to king William and queen Mary, which was agreed to in the articles of Limerick; and it was generally taken by them all over the kingdom, by the direction of their clergy." Lesley's Answ. p. 125.-"The English Roman catholics, in their chapels at London, prayed publicly at the same time, for king William and queen Mary."-Lesley, ib. p. 126.

them freely, but haggled, and kept off, some to the last day, roaring against them all the while; and then coming about, all at once, with new-coined distinctions and declarations, pointblank contrary to the declared sense of the imposers; they differed among themselves; every one had a salvo for his own conscience; some pretended they kept passive obedience still, others that they were never for it. It was a severe jest that the common people had got up against the clergy, that there was but one thing formerly that the parliament could not do, thatis, to make a man a woman; but that then, there was another, that is, to make an oath the clergy would not take."*

CHAP. XVIII.

The good faith of king William's and king James's officers compared.

DR. KING was not ashamed to affirm," that among all the articles into which king James's officers entered, they never kept any to the protestants." Yet these protestants themselves "spoke, at the same time, with commendation and honor, of Sarsfield's punctual observation of his articles, when he took Sligo, to omit other instances.2 General Ginckle owned to major-general Dorington, in the presence of the prince of Wirtemberg, monsieur marquis de la Forest, and several other general officers, the good usage their prisoners had received at Limerick, and other Irish garrisons; and most of the protestants that belonged to the north of Ireland, did then confess, that the Irish, while among them in the summer of 1689, kept their protections better to the protestants, than the protestant kept theirs to them. Even some of the most zealous sticklers

1 State of the Protest. &c. p. 149. 4 Lesley ubi supra.

In the Commons Journal, ann. 1695, I find the following passage: "Mr. Weaver farther reported, that it is the opinion of this committee that to an act in England of the 31st of Charles II. an act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, there shall be added the following proviso, viz. provided that no person or persons shall have the benefit of this act, unless he or they take the oaths, and subscribe the declaration made in England for this kingdom, intitled an act for abrogating the oath of supremacy in Ireland, and appointing other oaths, &c. The question being put that this house do agree with the committee in this resolution, it passed in the negative."-Vol. ii. f. 668.

for king William's government have complained much, that the, articles entered into with the Irish at Carrickfergus, by marshal Schomberg, were not punctually observed. For when that general first landed, he issued proclamations of protection and encouragement to the Irish, who would return to their habitations, and follow their labour; which many accepted, and a great part of the country was thereby planted, some places in as full a manner as before the revolution; but notwithstanding these protections, the protestant army fell upon them, and wasted their whole country; and when the Irish held out their protections, they tore them, and bid them wipe their ae with them, and none were punished for this breach of protections."

Notwithstanding general Ginckle's proclamation,+ printed at Dublin, February 4th, 1690, wherein he assured the papists in their majesties names," that all of them, who would submit to their majesties government, should be protected as to their religion, estates, and liberties; yet that did not hinder the multitude of outlawries, and other forfeitures and proceedings against those papists,† who submitted to the government,

A Lesley's Answ.

"Schomberg," says Macpherson, "invested Carrickfergus; he sum moned the garrison in vain; he opened four batteries against the place; he attacked it with the guns of the fleet; one thousand bombs were thrown into the town; the houses were laid in ashes. The garrison, having expended their powder to the last barrel, marched out, on the ninth day, with all the honors of war. But the soldiers broke the capitulation; they disarmed and stripped the inhabitants, without any regard to sex or quality; even women stark naked were whipt publicly between the lines."Hist. of Gt. Brit. vol. i. p. 570.

The journal of the most remarkable transactions in this war, published at that juncture of time, thus relates this breach of articles at Carrickfergus, with respect to the inhabitants: "The Irish in that town, when reduced to one barrel of powder only, made soldier-like terms; marching out with their arms, colours flying, ball in mouth, and other usual ceremonies in war; to be attended by a convoy, until they were within three miles of Newry. Yet the articles, though signed by Schomberg himself, were nevertheless barbarously violated by the soldiers; who, without regard to age, or sex, or quality, disarmed and stripped the town's people, forcing even women to run the gauntlet stark naked."

"By the report laid before the English house of commons, by Mr. Annesley, in 1700, it appeared that three thousand nine hundred and